News & Analysis as of

Prevailing Party Attorney's Fees Patent Infringement

Weintraub Tobin

Attorney Fees Denied Due to Lack of Support in Cannabis Litigation Record

Weintraub Tobin on

In 2018, United Cannabis Corporation (“UCANN”) sued Pure Hemp Collective (“Pure Hemp”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,730,911 (the “‘911 patent”), entitled “Cannabis Extracts and Methods of Preparing and Using the...more

Jones Day

Section 285 Did Not Allow For IPR Fees

Jones Day on

The Patent Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. In a recent denial of a motion for attorney fees pursuant to § 285, an Ohio...more

Weintraub Tobin

District Court Denies Defendant’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees Even After Granting Clear Summary Judgment On Noninfringement Grounds

Weintraub Tobin on

In Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 1-17-cv-01794 (NDOH 2021-04-29, Order) (Donald C. Nugent), the District Court denied defendant’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, determining...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Judge Noreika Denies Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees In Alleged Patent Infringement Action

Fox Rothschild LLP on

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Mixing & Mass Transfer Technologies, LLC v. SPX Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 19-529-MN (D.Del. November 4, 2020), the Court denied the SPX...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Prevailing at the PTAB Can Mean Prevailing Party Attorneys’ Fees

Addressing whether attorneys’ fees may be awarded in a patent infringement lawsuit where an accused infringer successfully invalidates claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Holds that Accused Infringers that Invalidate Asserted Patents at the PTAB Can Be a Prevailing Party Under Section...

Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Defendant Not “Prevailing Party” for Purposes of Attorneys’ Fees After Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under § 285, finding that a defendant is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of collecting attorneys’ fees where the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2019 #2

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-801 (Sup. Ct. Dec. 11, 2019) - This week the Supreme Court answered a long-simmering question concerning the extent to which a person who brings a...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Judge Netburn Finds Defendant That Won Partial Summary Judgment Is a "Prevailing Party" for Purposes of Attorneys' Fees

In her September 2018 summary judgment decision, U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) found that one of seven patents asserted by Plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co. ("SVC") was invalid, and that SVC was not entitled to a...more

Jones Day

“Exceptional” IPRs And § 285

Jones Day on

Inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings often arise in the context of high-stakes patent infringement litigation, and district courts frequently stay litigation pending parallel IPRs, which may fully resolve a...more

Weintraub Tobin

Do Your Homework Before Suing For Patent Infringement!

Weintraub Tobin on

The federal patent laws provide for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in exceptional patent infringement cases. 35 U.S.C. §285. An exceptional case is determined based on the totality of the circumstances....more

Fish & Richardson

EDTX & NDTX Monthly Wrap-Up – July 2018

Fish & Richardson on

Among the more interesting EDTX/NDTX opinions last month was a decision by Magistrate Judge Payne regarding §285 attorneys’ fees. As a reminder, 35 U.S.C. §285 provides that, in an action for patent infringement, “[a] court...more

Knobbe Martens

Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical, LLC

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. Summary: In determining whether a party’s actions were “exceptional” under Octane Fitness, the District...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The 9th Circuit Injects Some “Octane” into the Lanham Act Attorneys’ Fee Provision

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

In the immortal words of the most recent Nobel Laureate in literature, “the times they are a changin.’” Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

MoFo IP Newsletter - August 2016

Supreme Court Abolished Federal Circuit's Test for Willfulness - On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously abrogated the Federal Circuit’s...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Intellectual Property Law - June 2016

Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: An Overview - Why it matters: The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) was signed into law on May 11, 2016 and gives trade secret owners a federal cause of action for injunctive...more

Morris James LLP

Court Awards Costs But Not Attorneys’ Fees

Morris James LLP on

Andrews, J. Defendant’s motion for costs and fees is granted as to costs and denied as to fees. Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to dismiss after defendant’s suppliers had settled with plaintiff. Defendant moved for...more

Troutman Pepper

[Webinar] Making Them Pay: Winning Attorney Fees in Patent Litigation - Oct. 8th, 12:00pm EDT

Troutman Pepper on

In most litigation, each party pays its own attorney fees and costs, regardless of the outcome of the case. The Patent Act of 1952, however, allowed for an award of fees to the prevailing party in patent litigation in...more

Mintz

A “Solution” in Search of a Problem? The Innovation Act of 2015 and Trends in Fee-shifting in Patent Litigation

Mintz on

On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.” Among other things, the bill would direct courts to award attorneys’ fees and litigation-related expenses to prevailing...more

19 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide